CELPIP® Speaking Task 7 sample: A Shared Smart Speaker

Expressing Opinions · Preparation: 30 seconds · Response: 90 seconds · Published 23 October 2026

Original practice questions in CELPIP® task formats, created independently by CELPIP Study.

Practice question

Ingrid’s roommates in Charlottetown are considering a voice-controlled speaker for their shared kitchen. It could play music and set reminders, but voice requests would go to an online service. Switching off its microphone would disable voice control. Should shared households install devices like this? Give your view and explain your reasoning.

Model answers

These are transcripts of a model response, provided for comparison with your own recording.

Level 7 sample answer

190 words

I wouldn't put a voice-controlled speaker in a shared kitchen. It might be useful, but I think a shared room should feel comfortable for everyone who lives there.

First, people may have different feelings about sending voice requests to an online service. One roommate might not care, while another could feel uncomfortable. Um, the second person still needs to use the kitchen every day. They shouldn't have to avoid the room because of a device.

Also, sharing the speaker could lead to small arguments. One person don't want music while cooking, but someone else might keep asking it to play songs. Reminders could also interrupt a conversation. These aren't huge problems, but they could become annoying when they happen often.

Finally, the speaker doesn't seem necessary. People can set reminders on their own phones, and someone who wants music can use headphones. That gives each person more choice without placing another device on the kitchen.

I know the microphone can be switched off. However, if roommates keep turning it off, they lose the main reason for buying the speaker. I'd suggest using personal devices and keeping the shared kitchen simple.

Why this answer is at level 7

This level 7 model gives a clear opinion, organized reasons, and practical alternatives for the shared kitchen. Its everyday vocabulary, occasional grammar errors, and less detailed exploration of household disagreements place it below the more controlled and precise models.

These aren't huge problems, but they could become annoying when they happen often. — Content/Coherence: This sensibly explains how small interruptions could accumulate. However, the reasoning stays fairly general; the level 11 model develops the consequences through unequal benefits, repeated negotiations, and unclear responsibility.
They shouldn't have to avoid the room because of a device. — Vocabulary: The plain wording communicates the fairness concern clearly. The level 11 model expresses this concern more precisely through meaningful choice and direct control, distinguishing access to the kitchen from willingness to use the speaker.
One person don't want music while cooking, — Listenability: The example is easy to understand, but 'person don't' creates a noticeable grammatical stumble. Using 'person doesn't' would make the sentence smoother, matching the more consistent grammatical control in the higher models.
However, if roommates keep turning it off, they lose the main reason for buying the speaker. — Task Fulfillment: This directly addresses the prompt's microphone restriction and connects it to the recommendation against buying. The level 9 model explores conditions for accepting the device, while level 11 examines who bears the burden of switching it off.

Level 9 sample answer

232 words

I'd be comfortable having the speaker in the kitchen, as long as every roommate agreed to some basic rules before buying it. In a shared household, convenience only works if people feel included in the decision.

The most practical benefit would be hands-free use while cooking. If someone is mixing dough, setting a timer by voice could be easier than cleaning their hands and finding a phone. A reminder to take something out of the oven would also be useful when several people are preparing dinner together.

A shared speaker could help with small household routines, too. For example, the roommates might agree to a reminder about putting out the garbage or checking shared groceries. That could take the pressure off one person who otherwise keeps reminding everyone. I'd keep those reminders limited, though, because constant announcements would quickly become irritating.

The privacy concern deserves a proper discussion. Before purchasing anything, I'd want the roommates to understand what information the service keeps and decide whether they're comfortable with it. Everyone should be allowed to switch off the microphone without being questioned, particularly when visitors are using the kitchen.

So, I'd support the idea if there were genuine agreement, a modest volume limit, and clear control over the microphone. A short trial could help the household see whether the speaker earns its place. If someone remained uncomfortable, I wouldn't push the purchase through.

Why this answer is at level 9

This level 9 model develops a conditional opinion with concrete kitchen examples, natural phrasing, and workable household rules. Compared with level 11, it spends more time proposing safeguards and less time examining whether those safeguards distribute control and responsibility fairly.

If someone is mixing dough, setting a timer by voice could be easier than cleaning their hands and finding a phone. — Content/Coherence: The specific cooking example explains exactly why voice control could help, strengthening the convenience argument. The level 11 model adds another layer by comparing how much different roommates would benefit from that convenience.
That could take the pressure off one person who otherwise keeps reminding everyone. — Vocabulary: The expression 'take the pressure off' naturally describes the burden of managing household routines. The level 11 model uses more precise distinctions between announcing a reminder and establishing responsibility for the actual task.
I'd keep those reminders limited, though, because constant announcements would quickly become irritating. — Listenability: The inserted 'though' makes the qualification conversational, and the reason follows clearly. The level 11 model maintains comparable sentence control while developing longer chains of consequences involving preferences, inconvenience, and shared obligations.
Everyone should be allowed to switch off the microphone without being questioned, particularly when visitors are using the kitchen. — Task Fulfillment: This offers a practical rule that responds directly to privacy concerns and microphone control. The level 11 model probes further: even with permission, repeatedly switching off the microphone can leave an uncomfortable roommate responsible for managing everyone else's expectations.

Level 11 sample answer

256 words

I'd advise Ingrid's household against installing the speaker in their shared kitchen. The convenience is appealing, but a communal space requires a higher standard of agreement than a device used privately in someone's bedroom.

The first issue is meaningful choice. A roommate can choose not to make voice requests, yet still has to cook and eat in the room where the device operates. If they're uneasy about an online service handling requests, telling them simply to ignore the speaker doesn't address their concern. Switching off the microphone helps, but it leaves that person responsible for repeatedly asserting a preference that others may find inconvenient.

The benefits would also be distributed unevenly. Someone who cooks elaborate meals might use voice timers several times each evening, while a roommate who mainly reheats leftovers might gain very little. Both would nevertheless share the music, spoken reminders, and negotiations over volume. A useful gadget could gradually become another household issue to manage, especially during busy mornings when several people want different things.

My third concern is that shared reminders can blur responsibility. A speaker announcing that groceries need checking doesn't establish who will check them. A short conversation or a visible household list could make responsibilities clearer without adding another online service to the arrangement.

There could be households where everyone enthusiastically wants this setup, and they'd be free to choose it. In Ingrid's situation, though, I'd favour individual timers and headphones. Those alternatives provide most of the practical benefits while giving each roommate direct control over their own use.

Why this answer is at level 11

This level 11 model builds a layered argument about meaningful choice, unequal benefits, and responsibility in a shared kitchen. Precise vocabulary and controlled contrasts connect the device's features to household relationships, while acknowledging that fully willing households could reasonably choose differently.

Switching off the microphone helps, but it leaves that person responsible for repeatedly asserting a preference that others may find inconvenient. — Content/Coherence: This develops the microphone issue beyond whether switching it off is technically possible. It explains the recurring social burden, extending the level 9 model's proposed rule into an analysis of how that rule could work between roommates.
The benefits would also be distributed unevenly. — Vocabulary: This compact, precise wording introduces the difference between benefiting from voice timers and sharing the speaker's interruptions. The following examples give the phrase concrete meaning through elaborate cooking and reheating leftovers.
Both would nevertheless share the music, spoken reminders, and negotiations over volume. — Listenability: The transition 'nevertheless' clearly connects unequal usefulness with shared consequences. The parallel list makes the argument easy to follow, moving from audible interruptions to the discussions needed to manage them.
Those alternatives provide most of the practical benefits while giving each roommate direct control over their own use. — Task Fulfillment: The closing recommendation follows from the argument about individual choice and shared burdens. It offers timers and headphones as relevant alternatives, while the earlier concession recognizes that unanimous enthusiasm could justify a different household decision.

What moves an answer from 7 to 9 to 11

These are model answers written to show each level. The labels are practice estimates, not examiner scores.

State your position and develop distinct reasons with concrete examples. Connect the argument and explain relevant trade-offs while keeping your position clear.

Content/Coherence: Level 7 models communicate the main ideas; level 9 models develop relevant details with clear connections; level 11 models sustain precise, well-integrated development.
Vocabulary: Compare adequate everyday wording with more varied, accurate choices at level 9 and flexible, precise expression at level 11.
Listenability: Higher-level delivery needs clear pronunciation, rhythm, intonation and controlled pauses. Transcripts suggest phrasing and organisation, but cannot demonstrate these audio features; a recording is needed.
Task Fulfillment: Compare how fully the response addresses the request, develops enough relevant detail and maintains an appropriate tone for the audience within the task limits.

Assess the criteria together. A longer answer or rarer words alone do not establish a higher level.

Answer this question and get your level